Subscribe to our mailing list
Time to rark up the government, tired of waiting, been long enough now…
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
BCC: Nick Wright, Jeremy Bioletti, Pure Analytics.net, John Wilson, Jan, Bomber, Mitch Busdriver Native, Seala, Geeksunited, Andy Tonegreen, Rust In Space, Ben Brixton, Ben The@Symbol, SWF, BlKMN, Emmeline, Jerome ‘Trumpet’, Kara on gat, Kat Styling, Kiri Anahera, ‘Monza’, Nick Supergroove, Paaka, Penny, Richard Republic, Seala, AtkinsonAAA, Kp26, Alicia Burrow, Fiona Connor
To The Supreme Court of New Zealand I primarily direct this email in the To: field.
To those in the CC: field should take note of my application and duly consider it, especially the Hamilton and Auckland district courts, the EACD, and the minister of Health.
A substantial portion of the recipients are hidden in the BCC: field of this email to maintain their privacy.
Notice is given. An email shall be sent after this revealing the hidden name CRI and date of birth numbers.
I, Txxxxxs Bxxxxx Axxxxxxx, of Pxxxxxxx, Auckland, 39 years of age (xx/xx/1977) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative and a member of the EACD before 1 September 2016, the date of another person’s trial, also in relation to, but not limited to the following past and future court actions:
The matter of procedure relates to ambiguity in the text of the law, the inheritance of laws from England, the interpretation of the meaning / purpose of a jury, inaccuracies in the text of laws, some constitutional issues, the rights of the indigenous etc:
 In the context of the Misuse of drugs act, what exactly is a drug?
It would seem obvious however I thought it a good place to set the context for the interrogatory please. The answer we’d assume is that a “drug” is considered for the purposes of the misuse of drugs act 1975 to be:
If this basic definition is true, then the plant genus cannabis needs to be struck out of the act in this case or by amendment, and we suggest the same or intended effect could be discovered by studying the following compounds:
THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).
 Do the citizens of New Zealand have the right to freedom of thought or not?
 Does the state recognise or deny our right to the freedom to develop our own unique human personality, our cultural behaviors, lifestyles, religions, traits and customs, so long as it does not harm ourselves physically or mentally, nor anyone else or nor anyone or other nation states property in any measureable way that’s reasonable?
Recently the Mexican supreme court ruled in favour of the right to develop a personality and stuck down the ban on the cannabis plant for contravening this, so I felt this was relevant to my interlocutory application at the Supreme Court.
 What justification exists or why should New Zealand citizens have a right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers and is this right enshrined in any legislation currently?
 Does the court agree that one good purpose of a jury is to protect citizens from overzealous governments and courts by forming a safety valve or sorts for aberrant or obsolete laws?
Our nation and many others are based on the universal and historic text of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD which establishes this.
 Should the criminal defence be allowed to instruct juries of their conceptual civic responsibility to deliver justice to their fellow citizens perhaps over and above the duty to law and to the crown?
The relevance is that we wish to mount a defence that depends on our ability to educate on history or law and instruct the jury in this case to strike out the relevant laws, Misuse of drugs act in this case, but regardless any obstruction to our natural defence this would seem to counter to the entire reason for having jury trials at all?
 Is New Zealand subject to relevant UK court precedents sovereign and UK where acquittal was provided to the accused despite considerable evidence of their “thought crimes”?
The cases are:
 Does the jury have the responsibility to deliver moral justice to the accused by acquittal from law but not guilt?
 Does the jury have the option to find any defendant not guilty even if doing so may require accepting the evidence of the crime as factually committed by the accused and yet also simultaneously determine the law itself to be invalid, irrelevant, obsolete, or not in the public interest in this particular case?
For example, the accused made a confession to guilt, ed his crime of thinking about it, could
if it is in direct contravention of the fact the accused was in wording of the thought crime law? (Which is the job of the police is it not?)
 Is it sensible or responsible for crown prosecution to proceed with CRI-2015-019-005519 if the defendant is indicating support from myself to mount a defence of a claim of right under the Crimes Act 1961 or should parliament intervene to clarify its position on the matter?
Considering the mountain of evidence against my friend (CRI-2015), and guilty admission in statements to police, an entire jury trial seems an expesive waste of tax payers money.
The fact that an accused person acted without “claim of right” is an element of certain offences with must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It enables a defendant to advance at their trial that they genuinely believe that what they were doing was lawful, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief.
In summing up the case to jurors, Judge Stephen Harrop said if the Waihopai Three* believed they were acting lawfully, even if they were mistaken in that belief, they must be acquitted. The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.
 Should parliament be instructed by the supreme court to act positively and decisively on the advice of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in it’s 4th and 5th periodic reports?
These are about right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence relating to possession with intent to supply. The UNHRC says that the burden of proof must fall with the prosecution, not with to the defence to prove innocence, so can we please have a direction from the supreme court on the matter?
 Do we have no other option but to forever incarcerate recidivist cannabis growers, dealers and users who refuse to cease growing, selling, and using the plant?
Most recidivist criminals receive extremely long preventative detention sentences for good reason.
Along with the United Kingdom and Israel, New Zealand is alone in not having a written, codified constitution, but at any rate laws are actually an extremely weak guarantee of outcome. We outlaw murder, theft, they still happen. This is not to say those behaviors are not bad; and it is not to say we don’t want to have any rules or laws; but that there are better guarantees of outcomes should we choose to look at the evidence.
The evidence shows that ethics, morality, and a humanity are a better guarantee of desirable outcomes for a country than strict laws to enshrine a victimless crime law initially designed to target political opponents of Richard Nixon.
 Should the jury and judiciary consider complex variables such as compassion, ethics, morality, and humanity or rather be instructed to instead behave more reliably like a computer, emotionless, robotic, but yet 100% fair and even entities?
Possibly a combination of the two is my guess so I seek clarification.
I would like the double positive scenario (both fair and humane) affirmed by a supreme court judge, to ensure the possibility of a fair trial for my friend and myself in future. The negative-positive combination (not human but only fair) appears to be the de facto method in NZ, hence the interlocution here.
 Should the judiciary and juries be instructed to overturn laws based on humanity?
It is not outside the boundaries of imagination to say that sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; thus the law in error.
And we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate.
And when humanity can in fact provide greater enforcement for individual human rights than the actual laws – the laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete.
Law is no substitute for consciousness.
The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.
Yours sincerely, Tom.
PS Thank you and thanks in advance for your eagerly awaited reply! Some further information about the drugs found in the plant cannabis sativa are in my appendix. As you can see I have actually purposefully held back on the questions for my interlocution, as their is a lot more material I have not covered in Appendix B.
THC, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and about 80 other chemicals are all in a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or (THC) is a psychoactive cannabinoid responsible for many of the effects experienced by the cannabis user.
Mild to moderate pain relief, relaxation, insomnia and appetite stimulation.
THC has been demonstrated to have anti-depressant effects.
The majority of strains range from 12-21% THC with very potent and carefully prepared strains reaching even higher.
Average THC potency is about 16-17% in Northern CA.
Recent research that suggests patients with a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and anxiety disorders should avoid high-THC cannabis.
Cannabidiol or (CBD) occurs in many strains, at low levels, <1%. In rare cases, CBD can be the dominant cannabinoid, as high as 15% by weight. Popular CBD-rich strains (>4% CBD) include Sour Tsunami, Harlequin and Cannatonic.
It can provide relief for chronic pain due to muscle spasticity, convulsions and
inflammation. Offering relief for patients with MS, Fibromyalgia and Epilepsy.
Some researchers feel it provides effective relief from anxiety-related disorders.
CBD has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth when injected into breast and brain tumors in combination with THC.
Cannabinol or (CBN) is an oxidative degradation product of THC. It may result from improper storage or curing and extensive processing, such as when making concentrates. It is usually formed when THC is exposed to UV light and oxygen over time.
CBN has some psychoactive properties, about 10% of the strength of THC.
CBN is thought by researchers to enhance the dizziness and disorientation users of cannabis may experience.
It may cause feelings of grogginess and has been shown to reduce heart rate.
Cannabichromene or (CBC) is a rare, non-psychoactive cannabinoid, usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.
Research conducted has shown CBC has antidepressant effects, 10x those of CBD.
CBC has also been shown to improve the pain-relieving effects of THC.
Studies have demonstrated that CBC has sedative effects, promoting relaxation.
Cannabigerol or (CBG) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It is commonly found in cannabis. CBG-acid is the precursor to both THC-acid and CBD-acid in the plant usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.
Researchers have demonstrated both pain relieving and inflammation reducing effects.
CBG reduces intraocular pressure, associated with glaucoma.
CBG has been shown to have antibiotic properties and to inhibit platelet aggregation, which slows the rate of blood clotting.
CBC has been shown to increase the viability of progenitor (stem) cells in the brains of mammals, and is therefore likely to be a form of brain growth stimulant.
Pouring through the law books trying to find out why and how MODA 1975 got passed, and discovered we can blame Nixon. Ironically, like the TPPA, the US based changes pushed by Nixon were never actually implemented by the USA but were implemented by our 37th Parliament without any public consultation or approval.
Supposed to be in control of the schedules of the Misuse of drugs act, but appear to be failing in their duties:
I hereby request to them to remove the cannabis plant and natural extracts and concentrates from the schedules, perhaps with a 1 or 2 year delay on the execution so give time to draft other regulations.
As their website says, the drug classification process is based on risk of harm to individuals or society, therefore The EACD is required to advise the Minister of Health on a range of specific criteria for each drug.
More information on the criteria for classifying drugs, the role of the EACD and the Minister of Health, and the classification process is contained in sections 3A to 5AA of the Act. Go to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 on the New Zealand Legislation website to learn more.
So far this body has only appears to have commented on the following drugs / compounds:
So far the body has produced reports about the following drugs of abuse:
Why is it I don’t see cannabis or extracts anywhere in this list? Well perhaps I shall give them all a ring and double check they have recommended cannabis to be removed from the schedules: at least so we can do scientific studies on it and to remove the contradiction!
Vickie appears a bit flaky (4:50 in) I think she should grow some balls and stand up us oppressed tokers by saying how sweet the mary-jane is:
She is good but I’d correct her on the “gateway drug” thing. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. If you can’t buy crack at your local bar or pharmacist, then you won’t be able to either at your cannabis dispensary.
So here is my open letter to them…
Dear [EACD members name],
my name is Tom Atkinson aka Tomachi. I’m an international musician and computer artist.
I’m writing to you urgently on a matter of life and death.
Mine. But also others.
I was almost killed while spending 4 nights in Mount Eden Remand Prison over the New Years public holiday, all thanks to what I can only assume is your apparent status-quo stance on the violence-promoting prohibition of cannabis. The charges were later dropped.
I also want to apply for approval to study and begin building high powered better-than-graphene hemp batteries, and the effects of it on the mind using an OpenBCI brain scanner, but I can’t with the current appearance of cannabis in the schedules of the misuse of drugs, thanks to your lack of action in a way. I request that you remove it entirely from the schedules, thereby forcing further regulation, and showing your personal strength and the power of your science committee.
Our bill of rights was originally designed as supreme legislation back in the 1980’s. But due to the perceived threat of “judicial activism”, it was passed into law in 1990 just as a regular statute. The UN has criticised our lack of constitutional human rights twice, in the fourth and fifth periodic world report on human rights! The difference, as I understand it, meant that judges in the High Court could not decide on their own volition – called judicial activism – to override any strange obsolete law based on it’s incompatibility with the bill of human rights for example. You know such petty issues such as not to be subjected to undue search and seizure, to have some kind of privacy in your own home so long as you harm no one, not to be tortured for no good reason, and to be able to practise your religion unhindered. Oh and to be provided with justice. Those types of things**.
I was tortured for a crime that involves nobody else and a dried plant.
I was tortured purely based on my religion and thoughts: Cantheism.
I wasn’t even home when the police visited, smelt my neighbour smoking cannabis, then proceeded to kick down every door in the house of 6 people living in it doing massive damage that I am still to this day repairing, all to find 1 gram of cannabis in my bedroom? Another 2 nights in MERC on charges that were later dropped during an open court plea bargain, that only would have happened because I plead Not Guilty and asked for a full jury trial.
It’s actually becoming clear to me, that there is some pretty gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by the police around this subject. Two high end studies* I found showed systemic abuse of Maori around the issue of cannabis and it’s lax interpretation by the police. This forms part of a high court injunction I am preparing to serve against you and your committee presently to attempt to force an action.
The NIH just published a study*** showing 45% reduction in bladder cancer from the people who only consumed cannabis and not tobacco. If you can’t see this obvious promise staring you in the face, then you are failing in your duty.
Shortly I intend to apply for an injunction that forces your body – the EACD – to either a) promise to provide scientific recommendations not just on cannabis sativa, but on all medicinal natural extracts including water or b) remove cannabis sativa from the schedules due to it’s medicinal qualities and it’s natural whole-plant nature.
I also plan to, based on your response to this email and phone campaign, to potentially bring a private prosecution against you if I feel you are not cognisant of aforementioned points, for failure to perform your statutory duty. Sorry. It is your job to be cognisant, as you are the expert committee!
Perhaps you’ll need to put out three studies on the pure forms of:
If you think about it, The Health Act 1956 binds the crown to do good, or as they say in that funky legal speak “the Ministry shall have the function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health.”
Kawa Kawa (Macropiper excelsum) is an indigenous whole plant based herb. The Maori shamans were banned I assume from using it in the Tohunga Suppression Act 1908, an act that was designed to screw over a man who goes by the name Rua Kenana. They never used it against him, only one brother got hit by that oppression in the end, but it had a chilling effect, and was repealed in the 1950’s or thereabouts, through an amendment.
I mention Kawakawa because it’s a whole plant medicine.
You can’t ban Oranges just because they contain vitamin C, and you haven’t yet put out an advisory on vitamin C yet. You never will, the industry seems to hate vitamin C. It’s a natural medicine so it’s difficult for us to figure out. The Swiss seem to have a good medical system that can do it.
When our 37th parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs Act it was done with no public consultation and very little debate in the house. It’s bit like the TPPA is currently being done… with John Key instead of Nixon at the helm this time acting like a foolish puppy dog for America; The evil man called Nixon at the helms after the assassination of Kennedy.
In a secretly taped recording of Nixon he can be heard saying the following on May 26, 1971 at 10:03am:
“Now this is one thing I want. I want a goddam strong statement on marijuana – can I get that out of this sonnofabitching domestic council?
“I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. I see another thing in the news about it.
“You know it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards out there for legalising marjiuana are jewish. what the christ is the matter with the jews bob? what is the matter with them? I spose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists you know there’s so many because all the psychiatrists are jewish . By god we are gonna hit the marijuana thing. and i want to hit it right square in the puss. want to hit it [blah blah insane ramblings].”
Our cannabis law is based on hatred for Jews.
By the way I am one quarter Austrian Jew.
And you guys are fairly much directly responsible for that, after our pathetic politicians down in Wellington. I feel John is laughing at punishing us for the poor voter turn out. I voted always by the way.
I put it to you, that you have failed in your statutory duty and will try to find any way that I can bring a private prosecution against you and your organisation if it’s at all possible, and believe me I’ve been looking pretty hard lately.
Yours truly, a truly frustrated and tired of waiting person.
PS Also if you see Vicki remind her on this point about the “gateway drug” myth she botched in the interview above. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. I can somehow tell you know this but you didn’t show this in the interview. If you can’t buy crack cocaine at your local bar or pharmacist, then you certainly won’t be able to buy it at your cannabis dispensary either – it would be stupid of them to stock anything illegal if they had a house full the brim with heavily regulated weed!
PSS Prohibition causes violence and crime. Prohibition is not the ultimate form of regulation, it is actually the abdication of responsibility. Regulation will stop the gangs and prevent people from getting hooked on harder drugs like meth, and YOU should be ashamed of yourselves for not pushing much much harder for a taxed and regulated market for this wonderful herb simply to stop meth and gangs. You have caused un-knowable violence and pain for many people since 2000 AD. Do the right thing. NOW! Hurry! Or else you mite have an accident – karma is a pain.
* the two studies are shown below
** the types of rights I’m referring are shown below
*** NIH Study on cannabis use and bladder cancer 11 years 84,000 men longitudinal study shows 45% reduction with a 95% confidence interval! These results are off the chart obvious that you have missed something crucial in your science. Grab some ganja today because it’s obviously going to save your life, and hurry to quickly and strongly remove it from MODA1975.
The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 excludes scientific evidence:
Section 205 (Court may suppress evidence and submissions)
Section 223 (Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court in regards public interest)
The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that (a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance. I believe that there is a great public interest in the reform of our cannabis laws and that only a jury nullification or member of parliament can do it or a member of the EACD can do it.
5 Abuses of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
I seek an urgent High Court interim injunction appeal due to the life threatening yet unusual and unintended severe negative effects of the prohibition law on my ability to work, think, live, love and die based on my in-ability to access adequate protections of my human rights:
Near the end of the US Liquor Prohibition juries ceased convicting based on law and decided instead to deliver justice. It is the juries responsibility to deliver justice not uphold the law, established in 1670 Tower of London case of William Penn who was charged with speaking in the street but was not permitted to show evidence in trial (to bias the jury against the bad anti-quaker law) and when the jury found him not guilty the entire jury were sent to prison and fined a years wages.
After 1670 juries would be unable to be punished for their thoughts – this has not happened in New Zealand yet, except perhaps with the Waihopai Three Nullification.
Evidence Supporting a Jury Nullification for any Cannabis Related Offence
Proceeds of Crime Data – Past 10 years – Shows prohibition to produce inconsistent rates of return
Based on the data from my official information act request of 15 June 2013
(45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf)
When plotted by city and against time one can see that the proceeds of crime act is not a very consistent method of extracting tax revenue from the illegal drugs market in NZ.
The following table suggests that Forfeiture order amounts could potentially be unfairly implemented across the country, with no proceeds whatsoever over a 10 year period from Napier, New Plymouth, Hamilton, Invercargill; but with extremely high amounts from Whangarei equivalent to $67 per person!
Source: 45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf
as signed off by Graeme Astle – bless him and give thanks and praise for Jahs work!
A jury would have been asked to consider the benefits of tax revenue to our economy
A jury would be asked to consider our high rates of incarceration and the downsides of this
The chart below is sourced from corrections own data and shows a ballooning Community Detention block, for XLS data see: http://www.legalise.org.nz/home-detention/
Illustration shows that Marijuana is associated with creativity
In 2012 only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis according to
Portugal has managed to cut it’s drug addiction rates in half through public health policies
Pot Friendly Countries
Cost of administering sentences by sentence type
No prosecution for cannabis should proceed because it is no longer in the public interest
The UN comments on NZ lack of rights in the Fourth Periodic Report under the convenant on civil and political rights.
This is fucked to put it bluntly I’m sorry.
An excerpt from 15 YEARS OF THE NZ BILL OF RIGHTS: TIME TO CELEBRATE, TIME TO REFLECT, TIME TO WORK HARDER? By Petra Butler:
Thomas Jefferson said “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”
The results of a very long running US GALLUP poll on whether the use of marijuana should be made legal or not shows a steady increase from 12% right up to 58%
The world’s first ever marijuana conviction shown. 4 years prison for 2 joints. Prisoner number 18,699. Numbers would get to the point where America has more people in prison than Chinese prisons!
We can thank Nixon for this terribly brutal regime we are still subjected to.
Maybe I was stoned and missed it, but a momentus event occurred in April!
You are receiving this newsletter because Re-Legalise NZ decided to “carry” a transmission from Damien O’Connor. This was a decision SecretStoner made and is a one off – for more you would need to subscribe to Damien O’Connor’s news list personally on his website. We respect your privacy and will not share your details with any 3rd party.
Copyright © 2016 Re-Legalise NZ
Shown below are prison population graphs from Corrections NZ showing daily prison muster numbers, taken from pages such as the December 2015 summary. My OIA Request 429890 seeks to obtain very fine-grained database access to the full set of Corrections anonymised database tables for the past 10 years, including one-way salted hashes of prisoners CRI/CRN numbers to provide protection for privacy respect to the privacy act), including columns or fields for “gang” / religion / tattoos or whatever you have, I will be able to plot on a daily chart the numbers similar to how Corrections has itself done on the website.
To illustrate I have collected a series of graphs taken from the December summary pages…
2008 to 2011:
2010 to 2013:
2011 to 2014:
2013 to 2015:
2014 to 2018 (predicted):
By my calculations the NZ justice system consumes 3,248,500 prisoner nights per year! At a cost of $90,936 per prisoner per year and $900 million / year for corrections. And yet 16% are put there for the “crime” of altering their minds. Freedom of Thought Now! The Rastafari should be able to burn incense just like a catholic priest burns his incense. Anything less is a fundamental christian dictatorship using “smell” as evidence when you can’t take a photo of an aroma https://www.legalise.org.nz/synod/
I assume with 10 years of data, 10,000 prisoners and another 10,000 on EM curfew, the data should use about 200,000 – 1,000,000 rows of database or similar assuming an average conviction rate of 75% and between 1 and 5 charges per judgement.
Figures need to also show EM curfews like home detention and community detention as well as prison time.
It is an open secret that ISIL, ISIS, Al Qaueda or القاعدة use cash sourced from Heroine crops in Afghanistan, and in 1991 USA killed over 3,000 innocent civilians in Panama city via a single bomb blast to an apartment block over cocaine.
The ironically named Operation Just Cause was the exact opposite of justified. It blows my mind to think that whomever came up with that disgusting name for a military operation didn’t consider the irony of the injustice of it.
The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the US between mid-December 1989 and late-January 1990. It occurred during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by 1 January 2000. wikipedia.org/US_invasion_of_Panama
Noam Chompsky had points out how the US Attorney-General has blocked the evidence proving the “Target Practice” conspiracy theory (this was practice for Desert Storm, only a few months away) this to say which shows the terrifying control over NYT:
Central American sources continued to give considerable attention to the impact of the invasion on civilians, but they were ignored in the occasional reviews of the matter here. New York Times correspondent Larry Rohter devoted a column to casualty estimates on April 1, citing figures as high as 673 killed, and adding that higher figures, which he attributes only to Ramsey Clark, are “widely rejected” in Panama. He found Panamanian witnesses who described U.S. military actions as restrained, but none with less happy tales. zcomm.org/…chomsky…dd-c05-s11 … The Mexican press reported that two Catholic Bishops estimated deaths at perhaps 3000. Hospitals and nongovernmental human rights groups estimated deaths at over 2000. … Eyewitnesses interviewed in the urban slums report that U.S. helicopters aimed their fire at buildings with only civilian occupants, that a U.S. tank destroyed a public bus killing 26 passengers, that civilian residences were burned to the ground with many apartments destroyed and many killed, that U.S. troops shot at ambulances and killed wounded, some with bayonets, and denied access to the Red Cross. … The Spanish language press in the United States was less celebratory than its colleagues. Vicky Pelaez reports from Panama that “the entire world continues in ignorance about how the thousands of victims of the North american invasion of Panama died and what kinds of weapons were used, because the Attorney-General of the country refuses to permit investigation of the bodies buried in the common graves.” An accompanying photo shows workmen exhuming corpses from a grave containing “almost 200 victims of the invasion.” Quoting a woman who found the body of her murdered father, Pelaez reports that “just like the woman at the cemetery, it is `vox populi’ in Panama that the North americans used completely unknown armaments during the 20 December invasion.”
1 Spanish journalist killed
Source: Jamie Han 2013 blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2013/05/opium-farming-in-afghanistan/
According to the Herald:
The Catanian Mafia in turn works closely with the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta, an international criminal network whose mastery of the cocaine market means it has a turnover of £44 billion, greater than McDonald’s and Deutsche Bank combined.
The investigators’ principal concern is that the weapons may fall into the hands of extremists. “The Egyptian citizen was previously arrested in Italy for belonging to an organisation dedicated to human trafficking in the Med. We’ve been investigating possible connections with terrorist organisations,” a carabinieri source said.
Organised criminals are increasingly open to trading with extremists, complicating the battle against terrorism.
Ballistics experts are aware that petty criminals and drug dealers usually require small pistols they can conceal, while terrorists want assault weapons to inflict maximum damage.
In 1533, King Henry VIII decreed that all landholders set aside one-quarter acre for the cultivation of hemp for every sixty acres of land that they tilled, in order to provide the necessary fibre required by the nation. This was to satisfy the increased demand for rope and sailcloth for King Henry’s VIII new navy.
In 1563 Queen Elizabeth I reintroduced the law to expand her navy and she added a £5 fine for any eligible landlord who failed to comply. From then on the demand increased and the hemp industry became a very important industry to the British economy. They had to improve the supply of this strategic raw material when in the 1630s the British sped up their colonisation of the new world.
1. Deitch, Robert (2003) Hemp: American history revisited: the plant with a divided history. page 12. Algora Publishing. Accessed 2010-01-16.
Research and text © Hempshopper Amsterdam.
This Bill enables the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to require community-based offenders and bailees, if they are subject to conditions prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol, to undergo drug and alcohol testing to ensure compliance with these conditions.
(Formerly Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill)
(Formerly part of Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill)
|Member in charge:||Hon Amy Adams|
|Type of bill:||Government|
|Act:||Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2015 (15/106)|
It’s a nice idea but has some issues, mostly the maximum (or is it minimum? That I could understand!) THC content limit which is shocking and arbitrary and non-scientific, and the fact we’d still have a black market for un-licensed bud, and no way to purchase whole-product medical buds (except pre-ground and pre-rolled or by growing it yourself). On the positive side it would be fantastic to have absolutely any movement at all on the subject, and by the sounds of it would create a centralised place to buy and sell government approved cannabis products. In effect, a government registry would be fantastic since you would have literally thousands of products to choose from eventually – if I understand it properly.
This from Chris Fowlie at hempstore:
“Under Wilkin’s proposed model the government does not grow the cannabis, it licenses production just like with hemp to a variety of producers – some may be indoor, some may be outdoor, or organic, the idea is there would be a variety of cannabis producers making a variety of products. And by “cannabis products” he means cannabis with some form of processing – so it can be distinguished from black market cannabis – e.g. ready rolled joints with logos, balms, tinctures, pre-ground buds for vaping, basically anything except unprocessed bud. Most tobacco smokers do not insist on unprocessed tobacco leaves, they are happy to purchase “tobacco products”, so other than “fuck the government” purists who think anything except “no rules” will be a disaster, I think most cannabis users would be very well served by this model – and if they want more, or insist on smoking bud, they can grow their own, or register as medical users. There is no model that will make 100% of the people 100% happy, but this goes a long way to keeping most people mostly happy (including traditional opponents like police, etc), which is what we will need to bring about law reform.“
This from Wilkins’ page at Massey
“Approved cannabis products would have a limit to the amount of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol – the principal psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) allowed, and a required minimum level of CBD (cannabidiol – the non-psychoactive ingredient, known for its medicinal benefits).
They would only be produced and sold by the government, ensuring a high price to restrict demand and generating tax revenue to support treatment counselling, health services and enforcement. “The Government will be the only producer and the only seller, and that’s a means to keep the price high and also collect tax.”“
I may have stirred a hornets nest… but I just made a complaint to the serious fraud office about discrepancies in the reporting of proceeds of crime forfeitures. Namely that how come over a ten year period they take $3.8M out of Whangarei, but $0 out of Napier, New Plymouth, Invercargill, and Hamilton? Either the cops are stealing all the cash from drug dealers…. or….. there is no illegal cash in those cities? This line of rationale goes that for a prohibition to work, they need to lock up every one of the 400,000 regular pot smokers and jail or execute them (recidivists need to be kept away from society). Hardened lifetime criminals are not people to be considerate to and rehabilitate – this is what preventative detention is about. Permanent removal from society. Richard Nixon is who we were trying to please when we passed that terrible law in 1975. Richard Nixon was anti-Jew and wanted them all locked up.
If you are curious about the 10 year log of all proceeds complaint see: https://www.legalise.org.nz/log-proceeds-crime-criminal-pr…/